varshadas
03-07 12:45 PM
Ajay and Shekhar. Did you guys have any luck with the Congressmen?
wallpaper Clasic VW Camper vans
mallu
02-16 12:23 PM
......This per country cap law is very much like the tax code. If you change it to favor one class of people, you end up screwing everyone else. ...
Currently, do chinese and Indians form a significant part of US population to affect diversity ? Just curious. I think one should start analyzing current US population and tabulate the % based on country of origin. Let us start with folks from UK, Italy, Ireland, Germany , Poland,..., India, China, ... . If it is found that some sections are less represented, let USA allow more into that category. True diversity.
Currently, do chinese and Indians form a significant part of US population to affect diversity ? Just curious. I think one should start analyzing current US population and tabulate the % based on country of origin. Let us start with folks from UK, Italy, Ireland, Germany , Poland,..., India, China, ... . If it is found that some sections are less represented, let USA allow more into that category. True diversity.
amsgc
07-02 09:36 PM
Regarding your argument on fairness:
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
2011 Sportline Kombi Van
stucklabor
07-24 12:42 PM
It all depend how we interpret the law.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
The law is the law, there is no room for interpretation. We cannot file for Adjustment of Status using form I-485 without visa number availability. Remember that I-485 is the form name that you use to apply for Adjustment of Status. When you file I-485, you are filing for Adjustment of Status.
Please think through your ideas before posting them.
Just as a FYI and anticipating arguments that may arise, EAD is available by law to Adjustment of Status applicants and others - such as students on OPT etc - and the law specifically says who may get EAD.
I will not respond to any further arguments on this thread that are on the lines of "Let us get USCIS to reinterpret the law, let us file I-485 and not call it an Adjustment of Status application, let us lobby USCIS to get EADs without filing for Adjustment of Status etc".
In response to the posts by rpatel, valabor etc - there is ZERO potential in pursuing this directly with USCIS. IV will not and should not waste any time in this effort.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
The law is the law, there is no room for interpretation. We cannot file for Adjustment of Status using form I-485 without visa number availability. Remember that I-485 is the form name that you use to apply for Adjustment of Status. When you file I-485, you are filing for Adjustment of Status.
Please think through your ideas before posting them.
Just as a FYI and anticipating arguments that may arise, EAD is available by law to Adjustment of Status applicants and others - such as students on OPT etc - and the law specifically says who may get EAD.
I will not respond to any further arguments on this thread that are on the lines of "Let us get USCIS to reinterpret the law, let us file I-485 and not call it an Adjustment of Status application, let us lobby USCIS to get EADs without filing for Adjustment of Status etc".
In response to the posts by rpatel, valabor etc - there is ZERO potential in pursuing this directly with USCIS. IV will not and should not waste any time in this effort.
more...
jonty_11
02-22 11:39 AM
c'mon guys...instead of just hoping lets participat ein IV campaigns...it makes no sense that EB2 wud move a lot...just think abt it...there are just too many of...now that everyone jumped from EB3 to EB2...it would have been wise to continue with ur EB3 application.
We need to get the a comprehensive fix to our problems..
Remember the way USCIS moves dates is based on how many applications they think they can process based on their resources..its not based on utilizing the country quotas for a particular year...hence the reason for loosing so many Immigrant VISAS every year..lets try to fix that...rather than hoping dates wud magically move.
Even if they move, I bet 90% of ppl who become current wud not get their GC in that particular month, and then the dates wud retrogress back to 1955 or "U" again.....
Concentrate on the big picture and IV drive to get Admin fixes...thats teh only real solution.
We need to get the a comprehensive fix to our problems..
Remember the way USCIS moves dates is based on how many applications they think they can process based on their resources..its not based on utilizing the country quotas for a particular year...hence the reason for loosing so many Immigrant VISAS every year..lets try to fix that...rather than hoping dates wud magically move.
Even if they move, I bet 90% of ppl who become current wud not get their GC in that particular month, and then the dates wud retrogress back to 1955 or "U" again.....
Concentrate on the big picture and IV drive to get Admin fixes...thats teh only real solution.
NKR
07-29 12:06 AM
Time for a chill beer, anybody wants to join? If yes, wherever you are, cheers :cool:
Cheers dude, working on an assignment...
hick. gueesa i hadf twoo machs beor.. hick ...goodsnightsss
Cheers dude, working on an assignment...
hick. gueesa i hadf twoo machs beor.. hick ...goodsnightsss
more...
gk_2000
08-10 08:41 PM
So according to this interpretation EB1 also will be retrogressed till everybody from previous years gets gc !
Good point. But there should be no holy cows where justice is concerned
Good point. But there should be no holy cows where justice is concerned
2010 1958 Volkswagen Combi Van
the_googly
11-13 11:09 AM
Not sure if we can conclude that there has been NO spillover. The dates have not moved back (retrogressed). You need more visa numbers than the quota - even to hold the dates. The only way to find out is to get the pending visa numbers report.
more...
aj1234567
07-18 06:08 PM
Hi Gurus,
My PD is Dec06 EB2, do you have any guess when I will be current.
Thanks
My PD is Dec06 EB2, do you have any guess when I will be current.
Thanks
hair Kombi utes/pickups and crew
gjoe
12-11 06:26 PM
If US does not benefit from giving the visas, are they doing it as a part of social service?
Social Service GC is called as Asylum and that comes with added benefits like medicaid and social security checks for a few years.
Black Hole research GC is also called EB3 GC which comes with lot of uncertanities until you really get it :) Unfortunately many of us choose this type because of our math and science background :)
Social Service GC is called as Asylum and that comes with added benefits like medicaid and social security checks for a few years.
Black Hole research GC is also called EB3 GC which comes with lot of uncertanities until you really get it :) Unfortunately many of us choose this type because of our math and science background :)
more...
vdlrao
07-14 12:45 PM
Please find out the visa numbers allotment for EB1, EB2 and EB3 till now. Till now there is about 100k visa numbers allotment for EB3 every year due to the vertical fallout. From now on there would be around 100K allotment in EB2 due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of visa numbers. Out of these 100k EB2 visa numbers, India will get greatest share of around 50k + visas. Please see the below.
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
hot Kombi utes/pickups and crew
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:36 PM
GET UP!!!
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!
Come to DC... lets get together & let our voices be heard!!!
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!
Come to DC... lets get together & let our voices be heard!!!
more...
house Volkswagen Kombi Van in Peru
Pagal
07-02 01:45 AM
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
Hello,
Done...this is a neat tool! Makes advocacy fast and efficient!
Hello,
Done...this is a neat tool! Makes advocacy fast and efficient!
tattoo Green Volkswagen Kombi Van by
gk_2000
08-11 06:31 PM
Again, as I mentioned, we are jumping all over the board with different ideas and opinions. This leads to no where. Someone who has good understanding of USCIS / DOS / Govt procedures should come up with an agenda and move forward from there. We'll need to work with IV leadership team too. (At this time, I don't think they are even looking into this effort, as understandably they have other goals in hand). However, we should approach them with concrete plan of action.
Everyone is willing to Donate $$$. But for what? What are we going to spend that money on?
We need focused efforts.
Lets join hands and maybe the OP can take the lead in preparing the agenda / plan of action.
What say you guys?
Bottom line: I believe we can do! Of course, we need to procure support from multiple sources like some of the ideas mentioned by the posters CompleteAmerica, Talking to senators on Aug 15th, etc.
Well the plan for now has to be just brain-storming. So let's compile the best ideas from here and make a list. So let's suggest our ideas and discuss the merits and de-merits of each of them
We should have some criteria to evaluate the ideas. I propose (in order of importance):
- Can be done with admin fix
- Controversy. Would like path of least resistance
- Addresses EB3 problem
All are free to develop upon these..
Everyone is willing to Donate $$$. But for what? What are we going to spend that money on?
We need focused efforts.
Lets join hands and maybe the OP can take the lead in preparing the agenda / plan of action.
What say you guys?
Bottom line: I believe we can do! Of course, we need to procure support from multiple sources like some of the ideas mentioned by the posters CompleteAmerica, Talking to senators on Aug 15th, etc.
Well the plan for now has to be just brain-storming. So let's compile the best ideas from here and make a list. So let's suggest our ideas and discuss the merits and de-merits of each of them
We should have some criteria to evaluate the ideas. I propose (in order of importance):
- Can be done with admin fix
- Controversy. Would like path of least resistance
- Addresses EB3 problem
All are free to develop upon these..
more...
pictures vw kombi vans
ajthakur
07-14 06:24 PM
Thanks Ramba. I appreciate your positive comments. I guess the only doubt now is to find out a way whether employer had revoked my 140 before 180 days? If they didnt I am 100% safe now.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
dresses Thie VW Kombi#39;s available for
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
makeup Kombi van, the one the
Lucky7
12-13 05:59 AM
I sent a letter earlier this year to one of my Senators here in CA regarding my 2001 LC and the result i got was that the senators secretary checked my case with USICS and sent a letter stating that my green card was approved 2003.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.
girlfriend 1967 Volkswagen Kombi Van Photographic Print. zoom. view in room
psk79
07-18 08:37 AM
Mine reached on July 2nd 9:01 AM. I don't think they must have rejected any application. I think, if someone is saying "rejected" means USCIS refused to accept the fedex, in which case package should be returned back to lawyers in 3/4 days.
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
You may be right, But I didn't hear about a single case where USCIS refused to accept the Fedex. How can they do it ?because they don't know what's inside the package. if anything is sent via usps they just drop it of in the drop box.
Also, does anyone know if the package has to be transferred to Texas or wherever your I140 is approved and then that particular center issues a receipt?? That's what I heard...
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
You may be right, But I didn't hear about a single case where USCIS refused to accept the Fedex. How can they do it ?because they don't know what's inside the package. if anything is sent via usps they just drop it of in the drop box.
Also, does anyone know if the package has to be transferred to Texas or wherever your I140 is approved and then that particular center issues a receipt?? That's what I heard...
hairstyles Sark Volkswagen Combi Van
piyu7444
01-31 04:57 AM
On H1 Status, one must be working full time and should be paid salary even if s/he is on benching. Three month maternity leave should be ok, but 6 months of unpaid leave will be very difficult to explain.
You should seriously consider changing status to H4, if that is an option.
In Nov, she can re-enter on H1 visa to come back to H1 status.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So does this mean that pending AOS has no meaning?
How about EAD.......if she switches to EAD in Feb with same employer and does not work from Mrach onward then?
My (mis)understanding was that as long as one has a pending AOS one can be in US without a job and paystub as long as one has a pending AOS.
Thanks for your help.
You should seriously consider changing status to H4, if that is an option.
In Nov, she can re-enter on H1 visa to come back to H1 status.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
So does this mean that pending AOS has no meaning?
How about EAD.......if she switches to EAD in Feb with same employer and does not work from Mrach onward then?
My (mis)understanding was that as long as one has a pending AOS one can be in US without a job and paystub as long as one has a pending AOS.
Thanks for your help.
HOPE_GC_SOON
03-20 09:55 AM
Don�t do character assassination of EB3 applicants. EB3s who now have qualifications/job for EB2 should definitely try to convert over to EB2. EB3s don�t listen to people like these. It�s the same mentality which opposes eliminating country limits; more over this same mentality which opposes EB reforms.
Grow up��
Trying to stop an EB3 person who spent more time than you in GC queue and has qualification for EB2 is just insane.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
Grow up��
Trying to stop an EB3 person who spent more time than you in GC queue and has qualification for EB2 is just insane.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
a_yaja
04-04 09:10 AM
I hope not. If they ban bodyshops the cap will never run out.
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
There are many business models and you need to be aware of how each model works. There are a lot of companies, banks, insurance companies, even small and medium manufacturing companies that hire contractors for developing IT applications. They remain contractors for a reason - once the application has been developed - the contractors turn over the application to the company for maintenance and enhancements. A small percentage of contractors stay on and become permanant employees - but others move on. It would not be cost efficient for those companies to hire all developers as FTEs - the cost associated with benifits, taxes, 401K, etc are much more costly than having a contractor. Ofcourse, they can lay-off the employees after the project is completed - but what would that do to their reputation? Any company that follows a "hire-and-fire" policy cannot survive long.
Let me give you a simple real life analogy. Let us say that you have a decent family sized car that you and your family use on a daily basis. Then let us say you want to go on a vacation with your friends family. What would you do in this case? Would you go out and buy a mini-van? Or would you rent one?
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
There are many business models and you need to be aware of how each model works. There are a lot of companies, banks, insurance companies, even small and medium manufacturing companies that hire contractors for developing IT applications. They remain contractors for a reason - once the application has been developed - the contractors turn over the application to the company for maintenance and enhancements. A small percentage of contractors stay on and become permanant employees - but others move on. It would not be cost efficient for those companies to hire all developers as FTEs - the cost associated with benifits, taxes, 401K, etc are much more costly than having a contractor. Ofcourse, they can lay-off the employees after the project is completed - but what would that do to their reputation? Any company that follows a "hire-and-fire" policy cannot survive long.
Let me give you a simple real life analogy. Let us say that you have a decent family sized car that you and your family use on a daily basis. Then let us say you want to go on a vacation with your friends family. What would you do in this case? Would you go out and buy a mini-van? Or would you rent one?
No comments:
Post a Comment